Clip taken from the YouTube video of the Elbows Up T.O. Public Meeting - original post from earlier today found here: https://www.reddit.com/r/50501Canada/s/U7jyMoggwj I have to share the most impa...
I wasn’t dismissing the fact that (in Ontario anyways) the HPV vaccine was rolled out for girls and not boys. I’m trying to get you to use your brain and think about “why” that would be.
Because if you think some board of doctors and scientists in the late 90’s was like “you know what, fuck men, let’s give this vaccine only to women, that will level the playing field.” Then I don’t know what to tell you.
They literally detail it as a cost thing in some of the reference material i linked. Protecting men’s health wasn’t worth the cost in the eyes of the government. I’m pretty sure that’s not a gender-neutral medical opinion, but rather an ideological/political decision layered on top. They further clarify that the studies used to support women-only treatment, only looked at women’s HPV related issues – ie. “We looked at just cervix/ovarian cancers, and based on that we’re just providing this to girls”. Basing medical policy decisions on biased studies is not a neutral ‘board of doctors wanting the best for all patients regardless of gender’ type of move. Here’s a quote from that university prof that sums it up, from the linked CBC article (my emphasis added):
“Many of the studies that have been done that have looked at cost-effectiveness regarding HPV vaccination coverage for boys have not taken into account cancers related to anal, penile and oral cancers. Most of those studies have been conducted around cervical cancers.”
Sorta like how if the USA says they don’t want to support trans/womens rights initiatives, because it’s too costly, it’s viewed as anti-woman/ideologically motivated. Even if they have some doctors that say “Yes, given our budget, we can’t cover women’s health needs”, it’d still be discriminatory. And if they conducted studies that only looked at the ‘men’ situation, and issued policy excluding women as a result of those biased studies, you’d justifiably call the policy/process discriminatory.
I don’t see your point as an issue with anything I’ve stated.
I’m really not following you anymore.
I wasn’t dismissing the fact that (in Ontario anyways) the HPV vaccine was rolled out for girls and not boys. I’m trying to get you to use your brain and think about “why” that would be.
Because if you think some board of doctors and scientists in the late 90’s was like “you know what, fuck men, let’s give this vaccine only to women, that will level the playing field.” Then I don’t know what to tell you.
They literally detail it as a cost thing in some of the reference material i linked. Protecting men’s health wasn’t worth the cost in the eyes of the government. I’m pretty sure that’s not a gender-neutral medical opinion, but rather an ideological/political decision layered on top. They further clarify that the studies used to support women-only treatment, only looked at women’s HPV related issues – ie. “We looked at just cervix/ovarian cancers, and based on that we’re just providing this to girls”. Basing medical policy decisions on biased studies is not a neutral ‘board of doctors wanting the best for all patients regardless of gender’ type of move. Here’s a quote from that university prof that sums it up, from the linked CBC article (my emphasis added):
“Many of the studies that have been done that have looked at cost-effectiveness regarding HPV vaccination coverage for boys have not taken into account cancers related to anal, penile and oral cancers. Most of those studies have been conducted around cervical cancers.”
Sorta like how if the USA says they don’t want to support trans/womens rights initiatives, because it’s too costly, it’s viewed as anti-woman/ideologically motivated. Even if they have some doctors that say “Yes, given our budget, we can’t cover women’s health needs”, it’d still be discriminatory. And if they conducted studies that only looked at the ‘men’ situation, and issued policy excluding women as a result of those biased studies, you’d justifiably call the policy/process discriminatory.
I don’t see your point as an issue with anything I’ve stated.